That’s how you’d describe the Crusaders’ decision today.
Keep the name, lose the logo. Fair enough.
If anything about the branding was offensive it was more likely to be the logo of the Crusader with the sword.
The name, well in modern times we don’t just use the word ‘Crusader’ for medieval Christian soldiers, we use it for anyone we consider a campaigner.
I’ve change my mind about this as the debate’s gone on
Months ago, I would’ve told you we needed to ditch both the name and the logo.
But then a couple of things became obvious.
First, the Muslim community didn’t ask for this.
If the Muslim community didn’t want it, then what are the rest of us doing? Telling them this will be good for them? Well what if it’s not?
The Muslim community told the Crusaders they didn’t want to be involved in this decision and CEO Colin Mansbridge began to worry that if the name changed, it could expose the Muslim community to angry backlash.
Good on him for realising that because it looks like division is a real threat.
Look for example what the Muslim community is now saying about further gun law changes.
At a parliamentary hearing yesterday in Hamilton, the Islamic Womens' National Council asked MPs not to use the Christchurch mosque attack as a reason for any more gun law changes.
Yup, banning semi-automatics fine, but anything else from here on in shouldn’t be blamed on the March 15 attack.
Because they said it would drive a wedge between Muslims and others in New Zealand
So, would a Crusaders name change drive a wedge like the Muslim community thinks the gun laws might?
Well, here’s my second reason for changing my mind.
Nearly forty thousand fans signed petition to keep the name.
That tells you Crusaders fans would’ve been really upset if the name changed, probably because few if any ever thought of their team as representing soldiers from hundreds of years ago.
So, could it have driven a wedge?
In the end, the crusaders found the best solution: compromise